Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Lease/Option: Buyer failed to close at 3 deadlines

Enetered 1yr lse/opt agrmnt, 15Nov01-close 15Nov02. We had disagreements over repairs and fact he built a bedroom in my garage w/o written or verbal OK. My attorney coordinated a new purchase agreement. Met seller requirements for close 15Nov, did agree to a delay to 26Nov02, for 'reasonable time' for funding. To date: no buyer signed escrow inst or loan doc's received, nor notifications of reasons/requests for delay received by agent,escrow or my attorney. Buyer also quit paying rent as of 15Nov02. He thinks he should get additional option money, I don't agree Buyer is a big shot San Diego City attorney, repeatedly threaten litigation. Now says he'll sue me for breach (reasonable time). Served notices. Any reasons why I can't prevail in termination tenancy and purchase agreement?


Asked on 12/17/02, 4:29 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

Re: Lease/Option: Buyer failed to close at 3 deadlines

Your situation (and your question) raise several caution flags for an attorney attempting to reply without having an opportunity to obtain more details and read the option/purchase agreement and other documents. Therefore, consider this a very qualified list of suggestions rather than an answer or advice.

If the price you expect to receive is satisfactory, you should consider trying to salvage the deal and close, even if it's delayed.

If you don't know if the 'buyer' is still willing and able to close, you could simply confront him with appropriate questions. Be sure nothing you do could be construed as a waiver of your rights.

Since it appears you've been represented by counsel in this matter, I must ask why you feel the need to get second, etc. opinions. Do you lack confidence in him/her?

Normally, option deadlines and methods of exercise are quite strictly construed by courts. Other sale-agreement time-related terms are also given a rather strict interpretation if the agreement contains a 'time of the essence' clause.

To answer the question about the probability of 'prevailing,' let me point out that there is both a theoretical and a practical aspect. You may be 100% right on the legal issues and still come out a loser, especially if the agreement lacks an attorney-fee clause, if your opponent is an unscrupulous and obstreperous litigator.

Most cases (maybe over 80%) of this type settle short of trial.

I suggest you work out an overall strategy based on not only the probability of prevailing, but also the time and money cost to you, whether those costs would be reimbursed if you won, what happens to the property and your investment while litigation is pending, and so forth.

If you have a real-estate professional (broker) retained, get his/her advice as well.

What notices were served? I assume you mean unlawful detainer. I suppose you know, but I should warn you anyway, that if you are served with a summons and complaint or the like, you need to get an attorney and file an answer at once to avoid a possible default.

In sum, you are probably better off to negotiate something than to get entangled in litigation with an 800-lb. gorilla.

Read more
Answered on 12/17/02, 4:55 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Real Estate and Real Property questions and answers in California